Axis of Weasel!

[Bereta_Eder]

Japher, I come here to learn a bit of english as well so spell it right will ya

[Chris 62]

Ah, Paiktis, nice to see you took a break from your "reproofs" of people commentating about Greece and Turkey to pay my little thread a visit.

If France and Germany are the only ones in favor of keeping the EU going, does that not indicate maybe it SHOULD not continue?

How do the goals of Paris/Berlin have anything to do with Lisbon, madrid, Rome, Athens, London, ect?
Are they taking into account ALL of the EU members, or only doing what's best for them?

[Pekka]

Chris62, true. But we can't form one now. Our laws are not good enough. Yet! As we speak, we are thinking of changing this. I hope they do change it. And we have good relations. And it's funny, because it's easy and it doesn't matter what we say, and it won't hurt relations.. pretty much so. But then again, we didn't pledge our loyalty to you, and you didn't for us . Maybe that will come in the next few years as we're thinking of forming some international combat troops.

And as for your question, I thought it was about relations all together. Now that I understood your question, I don't think there's too much good reasons to keep military alliances together with countries that aren't going along with the program. If you want some, you have to give some, pretty simple.

I think there's a lesson to learn here.. if you say something, you can't do the other thing.. so if you form military alliance, you have to respect it and not just pick up the fruits and benefits.

[HershOstropoler]

"According to the terms of the resolution, Iraq already is in material breach."

Which does not change the UN Charter. Where does it authorize attack, occupation and "regime change"?

"But it won't happen, I mean how stupid idea is that? STUPID!"

Remains to be seen. How realistic and how stupid the idea is depends on a lot of other things in the institutional balance. We might say goodbye to the rotating presidency if, for example, some powers of the Council get cut.

[Pekka]

Or maybe there is a saying already to this: don't get yourself to situation you can't get out of.

[Chris 62]

That's an excellent point Pekka, if your military alliance powers want to follow a different path, why stay allied?

That doesn't mean you need to be enemies, just not tied together with military comitments.

[Pekka]

I don't think rotating presidency would work. If it rotates, why even bother having presidents? This can be done even without presidents.

[Japher]

i m soo sarrie pekka, mi englisch is knot soo gud ither. Albeit, eye speek Amerikanese. B-sides, speling teh werd "Imperialistic" without teh "E" woodn't make cense atall.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Chris 62
About Alliance, the United States isn't allied to say, Finland, yet the nations get along well enough.

Why is a military alliance needed between nations that have such obviously diverse goals?

If Finland were a member of the Security council, how do you think they would vote? If they voted the same way as France would you still consider them friends ?

[Pekka]

Chris62, yes, took me a bit time to understand fully this issue. Sure, if it were up to me, I'd let the countries go who can't live up to their expectations. But I think you guys should still remain good relations and friendship.

[Bereta_Eder]

Chris, the Paris-Berlin Axis is what the EU was founded on.
It is its locomotive of integration.
They are the biggest states and have the most influence compared to other sub divisions in the EU.

Their declarations may have angered the US but in the EU, as it is now, it is just expressing a general consensus the people have.
Thepeople are just not conveinced that there is a cause for war on Iraq.
I'm not expressing an opinion as to who is right or wrong, just stating what is going on here at this period.

[Caligastia]

I don't see why the US should let France and Germany hold it back. If they want to help defend Iraq, bring it on!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Pekka
I don't think rotating presidency would work. If it rotates, why even bother having presidents? This can be done even without presidents.

We have the rotating presidency now. It works in its own way, essentially a primus inter pares. An elected presideny, as suggested by Berlin/Paris and supported in principle by London, would be a different animal.

[Pekka]

Richileu, we have already stated our opinion. It's 'if others are for it, then we're for it'. But we wouldn't oppose it. We would give the green light, but not join the fighting. We'd join fighting if everyone thought it was necessary. This is the official statement.

[Japher]

I think there's a lesson to learn here.. if you say something, you can't do the other thing.. so if you form military alliance, you have to respect it and not just pick up the fruits and benefits.

Hmmmm. Then why argue US involvement or even war with Iraq? Same goes for N. Korea.